National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

Transcription

1 National Electric Power Regulatory Authority 4 Islamic Republic of Pakistan.` _ NEPRA Tower, Attaturk Avenue (East), G-511, Islamabad Registrar Ph: , Fax: Web: registrar nepra.org.pk No. NEPRA/TRF-255/JPCL-2014/ September 1, 2015 Subject: Dear Sir, Determination of the Authority in the matter of Motion for Leave for Review filed by Jamshoro Power Company Ltd. against the Determination of the Authority dated [Case # NEPRA/TRF- 255/JPCL-2014 In continuation of this office letter No. NEPRA/TRF-255/JPCL-2014/ dated September 12, 2014 whereby Determination of the Authority in the matter of petition filed by Jamshoro Power Company Ltd. (JPCL) was sent to the Federal Government for notification in the official Gazette. 2. Please find enclosed herewith the Determination of the Authority (11 pages) in the matter of Motion for Leave for Review filed by Jamshoro Power Company Ltd. against NEPRA's Determination dated in Case No. NEPRA/TRF-255/JPCL The Decision of the Authority is being intimated to the Federal Government for the purpose of notification in the official Gazette pursuant to Section 31(4) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997) read with Rule 16(11) of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority Tariff (Standards and Procedure) Rules, Order of the Authority is to be notified in the official Gazette. Enclosure: As above Secretary Ministry of Water & Power `A' Block, Pak Secretariat Islamabad CC: 1. Secretary, Cabinet Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, 'Q' Block, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad. 3. Secretary, Privatization Commission, EAC Building, Islamabad. ( Syed Safeer Hussain )

2 Against the Decision of the Authority regarding IPCL's Tariff Petition DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER OF MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR REVIEW FILED BY JAMSHORO POWER COMPANY LIMITED (JPCL) AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY DATED INTRODUCTION 1.1. Jamshoro Power Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as "JPCL" or the "Company", filed the tariff petition for the period July 2014 to June 2019 which was decided by NEPRA on September 12, 2014 with the following tariff for one year i.e : Capacity Charge Description Requested Tariff Approved Tariff Rs. Million Rs./1cW/M Rs. Million Rs./kW/M Indexation A Escalable Component: 2, , Salary and Wages 1, , CPI Administrative expenses CPI Repair and Maintenance CPI Other income (26.59) (2.93) (99.08) (10.93) CPI B Non-Escalable Component: 1, , Insurance cost NIL ROE 1, NIL financial Charges NIL Depreciation NIL C Total Capacity Purchase Price 4, , Name Fuel Energy Charge Net Heat Rate (1111V) Fuel Cost component Variable O&M Requested Approved Requested Approved Requested Approved BTU/kWh Rs./kWh Rs./1cWh Block-I Jamshoro Unit 1 RFO 11,001 10, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 2 RFO 12,408 12, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 2 Gas 12,408 12, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 3 RFO 12,408 11, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 3 Gas 12,408 11, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 4 RFO 12,408 11, Block-II Jamshoro Unit 4 Gas 12,408 11, Block-III Kotri Unit 3-7 -CC Gas 10,237 10, Block-III Kotri Unit SC Gas 15,356 15, TPCL REVIEW MOTION 2.1 JPCL, being aggrieved from the above referred decision, filed a Motion for Leave for Review under Regulation 3 NEPRA (Review Procedure) Regulation, 2009, which was admitted on 19th November , hile condoning the delay in filing the same. JPCL sought review on the following grounds: 1

3 Against the Decision of the Authority regarding JPCLs Tariff Petition a. Salaries& Wages b. Authority Overheads c. Repair and Maintenance d. Other Income e. Insurance f. Heat Rate 3. HEARING In order to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties, a hearing in the matter was held on 4th February 2014 in HESCO Committee Room Hyderabad. 4. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES Having gone through the record and hearing the parties, the finding of the Authority on the respective issues is given as under: 5. SALARIES& WAGES 5.1 The Authority allowed Rs. 1,340 million on account of salaries & wages against Rs. 1,839 million requested by JPCL for According to JPCL, the Authority has raised concerns on the number of employees in TPS Jamshoro and GTPS, Kotri and allowed 1.2 persons/mw for Jamshoro and 0.7 person/mw for Kotri gas station. The present TPS Jamshoro ratio of employees is 1.4 persons/mw(1,238/880) whereas GTPS Kotri Power Station's ratio is 2.36 persons/mw (340/144). The Authority has compared the number of persons per MW with India and Bangladesh and not any similar companies like K-Electric. K Electric's ratio of employee/mw is 1.4 (3221/2341).According to JPCL, reducing the ratio less than 1.4 will only question the long term sustainability of the national asset. Ratio of 0.7persons/MW for gas power station is more relevant to the latest technology. Kotri Power Station is 30 years old based on technology prevailing in 1980 and therefore,0.7 person/mw is not relevant to the existing Kotri power Station. JPCL submitted that being a state owned organization, it is not in a position to retire its employees or offer golden hand shake without the approval of GOP. 5.2 JPCL also submitted that the actual expenses incurred by Company under this head in and were Rs.1,672 Million and Rs.1,695 Million respectively which are much higher than the cost approved by NEPRA. According to the petitioner, Salary and Wages are not discretionary cost that can be curtailed rather it is a committed cost which is liable to be incurred. In view of these submissions, JPCL requested the Authority to reconsider its Tariff Determination and allow Rs million on account of salaries and wages for the which translate into Rs /kW/month. BIER NEPRA --(TA 2 AUTHORITY 1>

4 5.3 The Authority has considered the request of JPCL on account of salaries & wages. In the opinion of the Authority, both 1578 actual number of employees and sanctioned strength of 1705 number of employees is exceptionally high. JPCL referred the case of K Electric and submitted that the manpower/mw is 1.4. K Electric is an integrated utility managing all the three functions of generation, transmission and distribution of electric power to the end consumers. K Electric realigned its workforce through restructuring across the board from 17,436 to 10,242. The relevant data in respect of K-Electric is tabulated below: Sr. Power station Installed capacity (M W) Type No of Employees in Power Station 1 Bin Qasim Power Station-I 1260 Gas/HFO fired MW CCPP at Korangi 220 Natural gas Gas Engine at Korangi Town Natural gas 88 4 Site Gas Turbine Power Station Natural gas MW New CCPP BQPS-II Gas+Steam turbine As per the above details, the manpower/mw in case of K Electric is only 0.42 which is substantially lower than the JPCL. In view of above reasons the JPCL's argument with respect to employee /MW ration of 1.4 is not substantiated; therefore the Authority considers that, major restructuring is required in JPCL. Accordingly the Authority hereby directs JPCL to prepare and submit a restructuring plan keeping in view the industry benchmarks for Authority's approval at the earliest but not later than December 31, In view of the above, the Authority has decided to revisit its earlier decision. The Authority has decided to consider actual expenses incurred in the for assessment of salaries and wages along with increase in salaries and wages in over i.e. 1.38%. Accordingly, Rs. 1,718 million are being approved for the on account of salaries and wages. 6. AUTHORITY OVERHEADS 6.1 According to JPCL, the Authority in Para of the Tariff Determination disallowed Rs.25 million being WAPDA Authority's Overheads whereas this amount includes NEPRA Fee and prorate expenses of the office of General Manager (Thermal), G.M. (D&D) Thermal and GENCO Holding Company Limited (GHCL). These overheads are being shared by all the four (4) GENCOs proportionately in accordance with the Mega Wattage of each company. JPCL further sub tted that NEPRA also declined the requested 10% inflationary increase under the administrati expenses as the historical trend does not justify the increase suggested by the Petitioner. 3

5 *Rd Determination of the Authority in the matter of Motion for Leave for Review 6.2 JPCL submitted item wise analysis of the administrative expenses in support of its review request and submitted that most of the items have inflationary trend and those which have a declining trend have reasons, other than deflation. JPCL submitted that the Company exists in an inflationary environment and has to bear the impact of inflation and JPCL administrative expenses cannot be denied from 10% inflation. Therefore, NEPRA may kindly allow the impact of inflation, which hits most of the administrative expenses. JPCL also referred the cases of LPGCL and CPGCL where similar increase was allowed. In view of above, the Petitioner requested the Authority to revisit its earlier decision and allow Rs million for the on account of administration expenses. 6.3 The Authority having considered JPCL's request for allowing Rs. 25 million on account of GENCO Holding Company's overhead expenses reasonable. Accordingly, the Authority has decided to accept Rs million on account of GENCO Holding Company's overhead expenses are being allowed. As a result thereof the revised administrative expenses will be Rs million and the tariff component will be Rs /kW/month. Keeping in view the past trend and negligible increase in CPI (General) in June 2014 to in April 2015, The Authority did not consider the request of the petitioner for inflationary increase. 7 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 7.1 According to the Petitioner, the Authority approved Rs. 450 million as repair and maintenance cost for the with the provision that in case actual expenses on the maintenance/overhaul are higher than the approved amount, the excess will be reimbursed on the basis of verifiable documentary evidence. The approved amount was determined keeping in view the underutilization of allowed tariff on account of repairs & maintenance during the last three years. According to the Petitioner, under-utilization of allowed tariff on this account was due to non-availability of scheduled maintenance outages by NTDC/NPCC and lengthy procurement procedures. According to the Petitioner, the mechanism for reimbursement of such amount is neither provided in the Power Purchase Agreement nor in the Tariff Determination. The Petitioner further stated that the seeking of post expense approval of the Authority would be a cumbersome process and a barrier to plan any major repair work. 7.2 JPCL submitted that the current year's committed cost for repairs & maintenance is Rs million. The details of repairs &maintenance with purchase order, reference number and dates werealso provided. JPCL requested the Authority to approve Rs million as repair and maintenance cost for the instead of Rs. 450 million. 7.3 The Authority has carefully examined and evaluated the petitioners' review with respect to repairs and maintenance and the Authority is of the view that the petitioner failed to provide

6 cogent reasons and new evidence in support thereof. The Authority considers that currently it finds no justification to revisit or modify its earlier decision; however the Authority will consider to review the approved expenses, if the petitioner subsequently is able to demonstrate that its actual expenses were higher. 8 OTHER INCOME 8.1 The Authority determined other income of Rs million on the basis of average of the last four years actual other income against the requested amount of Rs million by JPCL. According to JPCL during the last three years, the other income is high because of the USAID grant of USD 19.3 million under Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement and Revised Activity Agreement signed between the Company and USAID on 20th May 2010 and 91h April 2012 respectively for the repair and rehabilitation of TPS Jamshoro which will be completed by the end of December2014.USAID grants are initially recognized as deferred income in the financial statement and recognized in profit or loss account as other income in the same period in which the expenses are recognized. These are only accounting entries and does not generate any Cash Inflow for the company in the year. 8.2 According to JPCL, the grant provided by USAID is not a regular phenomena and therefore should not be taken into account for the working of other Income. JPCL referred the CPGCL case and requested to consider the recurring items only in other income and one time or abnormal items are not considered for this purpose. In view of the above, the Authority is requested to allow the other income of Rs million as prayed in Tariff Petition. The details provided by JPCL are as under: Description Amount m Rupees Income from financial assets: Profit on Bank Deposits 22,952,572 25,637,493 1,506,847 21,899,311 Income from non-financial assets: Sale of scrap 14,617,110 10,750,792 4,277,806 2,274,062 Rent on leased property 848,615 1,092,457 4,135,826 2,615,709 Amortization of deferred income - 6,345, ,580,186 Reimbursement under FARA - consumable items - 56,816,000 35,617,853 Un-realized gain on revaluation of foreign currency - 6,022,618 Liabilities written back 4,462,445 Gain on disposal of Property, Plant, and Equipment 1,304,273 Miscellaneous 12,821,895 6,583,077 21,574,501 13,044,890 Total 51,240, ,184,092 79,480, ,876,603 5

7 ii. Heat rates on average of 1 iii. Heat rates on block wise Determination of the Authority in the matter of Motion for Leave for Review 8.3 The Authority has considered the request made by JPCL in the light of supporting information. In the opinion of the Authority, the contention of the petitioner regarding the grants and nonrecurring items is valid, therefore the Authority has decided to reassess the other income on the basis of average of the last four years of recurring items. The details of the recurring items in the other income during the last four years are provided hereunder: Description Amount in Rupees and 50% MCR Average Income from financial assets: Profit on Bank Deposits 22,952,572 25,637,493 1,506,847 21,899,311 17,999,056 Income from non-financial assets: Sale of scrap 14,617,110 10,750,792 4,277,806 2,274,062 7,979,943 Rent on leased property 848,615 1,092,457 4,135,826 2,615,709 2,173,152 Miscellaneous 12,821,895 6,583,077 21,574,501 13,044,890 13,506,091 Total 51,240,192 44,063,819 31,494,980 39,833,972 41,658, Accordingly the average other income of Rs million is being assessed for instead of earlier determined other income of Rs million. 9 INSURANCE 9.1 According to the Petitioner, the honorable Authority has not approved the requested insurance tariff which was based upon IPP's rates and covered all risks insurance, machinery breakdown, consequential loss following all risks and machinery breakdown, public liability and miscellaneous. According to the Petitioner, these are all allowed under PPA. The insurance under WAPDA insurance policy is not comprehensive and only covers generation plant and equipment while JPCL intends to have all assets insured in accordance with the PPA. JPCL requested that Rs.95 million premium may please be allowed to safeguard this national asset from any unforeseen event. 9.2 The Authority has observed that JPCL did not get insurance cover from the market for rather conventional WAPDA insurance mechanisms is in place and there is no justification for allowing higher insurance cost. In view thereof the Authority has decided to maintain its earlier decision in this regard. 10 HEAT RATE 10.1 According to the Petitioner, JPCL in its tariff petition requested the following heat rates: i. Heat rates as tested by the independent engineers 6

8 10.2 According to JPCL NEPRA accepted the heat rates which were carried out by independent Engineer however; the Authority has not accepted the requests mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above. According to JPCL, the Authority, contrary to the request made by JPCL, determined following heat rate Net Heat Rate (HHV) Name Requested Approved BTU/kWh Block-I Jamshoro Unit 1 11,001 10,775 Block-II Jamshoro Unit 2 12,408 12,093 Block-II Jamshoro Unit 3 12,408 11,765 Block-II Jamshoro Unit 4 12,408 11, According to JPCL, the heat rates requested in the petition are very close to the actual heat rates but contrary to this the approved heat rates are not achievable as all the units run below 100% load factor. Jamshoro and Kotri plants are not base load plants and cannot be operated on 100% load. Due to partial loading, the marginal consumption of fuel increases and heat rates deteriorates. This higher consumption of fuel has to be compensated by the power purchaser and there can be many mechanisms for this compensation. The company has suggested an average of 100% capacity and 50% capacity which provides heat rate at 75% capacity while the actual load factor remain below 75% during the last three years which is 47.83%,41.42% and 36.98% for , and respectively therefore, to assign heat rate on 100% load is not justifiable JPCL also referred the case of Hub Power Plant which has heat rate deterioration factor and a mechanism is in place for part load operation. HUBCO separately bill for the Start Ups and even these Start Ups are bifurcated among cold, warm and hot. JPCL does not have such flexibility for recovery of fuel and the only practical way to resolve this is to consider heat rates on 75% capacity. Any heat rate which is not representative of the load profile of the plant will not make this entity a viable concern and plant will start incurring fuel losses and to turn into a loss entity 10.5 Regarding the submission to determine heat rates on block basis, the petitioner referred the cases of HUBCO, LPGCL and CPGCL where heat rates have been determined on block basis instead of individual units. JPCL requested the same treatment and requested to determine average heat rates for Jamshoro block II and approve the fuel cost component accordingly The Authority has considered the request of JPCL for determination of heat rates on average of 100% MCR and 50% MCR and block wise instead of unit wise. In order to analyze the issue, technical information was sought and the findings are as under: i) To allow heat rates as requested by JPCL, hourly dispatch data of JPCL Units was obtained and it was noted that the Jamshoro Units have operated at their maximum capacity for most of the time. Some of the units operated more than their tested capacity. Therefore, the request of JPCL to allow them heat rate at75% loading (average of 50% and 100%) is not supported by the actual operational data. ii) Regarding request of JPCL for allowing heat rates of unit 2, 3 and 4 as one block(block2) is also not logical. The dispatch of all the power generation plants is controlled by NPCC on

9 Against the Decision of the Authority regarding IPCL's Tariff Petition unit basis depending on the heat rate/efficiency of that particular unit, in the order of merit. iii) NEPRA has also been stressing the need of strict following of Merit Order by NPCC and even directing some of the generation units to stop operations due to their relatively inferior efficiencies. Operating 3 units with a block heat rate would allow unnecessary cushion to JPCL for indulging in non-transparent operation of these units, and will not be in-line with NPERA's direction for merit order based operations. iv) JPCL in its review petition dated: submitted that NEPRA approved heat rates are not achievable as all the units run below 100% load factor. The Authority, in order to provide realistic compensation to JPCL for its operation at lower loads, directed it to submit partial loading curves provided by OEM so that these may be used for partial load operation individually by all the units which are tested. v) During the course of interaction for analyzing heat rates, JPCL also requested that the heat rates, as tested by the Independent Engineer M/s. Pakistan Engineering Services Limited during CDC/HR Test 2013, not accurately reflect the auxiliary consumption of individual units. JPCL was directed to provide documentary evidence duly verified from Independent Engineer M/s. Pakistan Engineering Services Limited regarding compensation in heat rate due to unit auxiliary isolation during CDC/HR Test 2013 to support its argument JPCL, vide its letter dated , submitted the requisite evidence verified by Independent Engineer. On the basis of the report of independent engineer, the unit wise heat rates due to unit auxiliary isolation are being revised and the fuel cost component has been adjusted accordingly. The unit wise increase in the heat rates is provided hereunder: Units NEPRA Approved Net Heat Rate in Determination dated: (Btu/kWh) Increase in Net Heat Rate as Verified by Independent Engineer (Btu/kWh) Net Heat Rate Revised after JPCL Submission dated: (Btu/kWh) Unit Unit Unit Unit However, it has been observed that the approved heat rates have been deteriorated significantly when compared with the designed heat rates. The Petitioner is directed to take every possible measure to bring the actual heat rates closer to the designed heat rates On the issue of partial operation of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, JPCL also provided curves for operation of individual units using OEM data. Based on the Ilata provided by JPCL for OEM supplied partial loading curves, the following correction factors are being approved to be used independently for operation of units 1, 2, 3 and 4: 8

10 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 % Correction % Correction % Correction % Correction Loading Factor Loading Factor Loading Factor Loading Factor ORDER 11.1 Jamshoro Power Company Limited is allowed to charge such tariff as is provided hereunder for sale of electricity to Central Power Purchase Agency within NTDC: Capacity Charges (Rs./kW/Month): Escalable Component: Salaries and Wages Administrative expenses Repair and Maintenance expenses Other income (4.59) Non-Escalable Component: Insurance cost 1.06 ROE financial Charges 2.98 Depreciation Total Energy Charges (Rs./kWh): Fuel Cost Component: Jamshoro Block I Unit 1 RFO Jamshoro Block II Unit 2 RFO Jamshoro Block II Unit 2 Gas Jamshoro Block II Unit 3 RFO Jamshoro Block II Unit 3 Gas Jamshoro Block II Unit 4 RFO Jamshoro Block II Unit 4 Gas Kotri Block III Unit 3-7 (CCP) Gas Kotri Block III Unit 3-7 (w/o CCP) Gas Variable O&M

11 11.2 The capacity charges are based on net dependable capacity of MW. Capacity charges will be paid strictly on the basis of agreed availability. LDs will be imposed in accordance with the PPA on non-availability of the each unit beyond the allowed limits. Power purchaser will allow outages for maintenance of the complex strictly in accordance with the PPA. In case of delayed payments, JPCL will be entitled late payment charges strictly in accordance with the PPA Tariff Adjustments/Indexations The reference tariff determined above is subject to following adjustments/indexations: a. Adjustment on account of Fuel Price Variation The energy charge part of the tariff relating to fuel shall be adjusted on account of variation in fuel price according to the following mechanism: FC(Rev) = FC(Ref) x FP(Rev) FP(Ref) Where: FC(Rev) = Revised fuel cost component of energy charge part of tariff FC(Ref) = Reference fuel cost component FP(Rev) = Revised applicable price of RFO/Gas as the case may be FP(Ref = Reference RFO price of Rs. 72,897/ton and Reference gas price of Rs /MMBtu b. Adjustment on account of Calorific Value The adjustment on account of variation in calorific value will be allowed as per the following mechanism: i) The reference CV will be Btu/lb. There will however be no adjustment below the minimum limit of Btu/lb. ii) JPCL shall maintain and submit, annually a detailed record of consignment wise CV of the oil received and consumed for power generation for the adjustment on account of variation against the reference calorific value duly supported with the copies of test reports certified by the fuel supplier. c. Taxes The impact of taxes has not been accounted for in the tariff. In case the petitioner is obligated to pay any tax, the exact amount paid shall be reimbursed as per existing practice The above tariff along with adjustment/indexation mechanism will continue to remain in force till the next tariff determined by the Authority and notified in the official gazett EWER RE-, 10 NEPRA AUTHORITY Jt.

12 11.5 The above order of the Authority is to be notified in the official gazette, in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(4) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act Authority (Khawaj a Muhammad Naeem Member (Himayat em er (Masood-ul-Hassan Naqvi) Member "-'- \..., (Maj(R)Haroon Rashid) Vice Chairman. 4' Brig (R) Tariq addo ai Chairman 11